Korea as an OECD member country, faces challenges in terms of material as well as psychological children's well-being. As a major agenda of OECD 'Social Policy Ministerial Meeting' in upcoming May 2011, the children's well-being emerged as a worldwide concern. Devising well functioning welfare policies for children, therefore, turns into an emergent policy agenda to the Korean society. Even though there have been a lot of policies for children, the Korea children's satisfaction with life is far below than that of the OECD member countries. Up until now, Korea produces and presented valuable data to OECD, and by using those dataset we can come up with policies well fitted to our current situation. This study aims to find out best-fitted child welfare policies to raise the level of both material and psychological well-being of Korean children. By adopting the Esping-Andersen's welfare state regime framework on the one pillar, and three fields of child welfare policies proposed by Segal on the other pillar, this study compared child welfare policies among several OECD countries. The major findings of the study are as follows. Public Spending on children and the family In Korea, the public spending on children and the family is very minimal compared to OECD member countries both in cash benefits and personal services. The adoption of child allowances and/or more generous tax credit system should be seriously taken into consideration to our society. Moreover, social services such as health care services, mental health services, counseling, home-help services, child care services need expansion in terms of their entitlements and services provision. Preventive Child Welfare Policies: Tax Credit Policies. Even though Korea has adopted EITC since 2008, its impact on child welfare is minimum as an income support scheme in reducing child poverty. The National Basic Livelihood Security system covers most of the poor people, and the EITC's coverage is quite limited. To raise the effectiveness of EITC, the rates of tax credit should be adjusted as high as the level of Basic Livelihood allowances. In the short run, EITC has to focus mainly on the poor family to have them actively participate in the labor market. In the long run, however, the items of EITC and the size of its benefit need adjustment considering the number of dependents in the family. Developmental Child Welfare Policies: Child Care Policies. In terms of child care, Korea can be classified as a Liberal welfare state where the major responsibility for child care is imposed on the family, and yet she can fall into the Socio-democratic welfare state in the sense that the state takes the responsibility of child care to tackle the low fertility problem. Unlike child care policies of the Socio-democratic welfare state, Korea's long-term direction in child care policies should not be limited to the familialization vs defamililization issues, but draw the clear picture in roles and functions of various social policies to achieve universalism in child care in response to the increasing needs. Intervention Child Welfare Policies: Child Welfare Policies for the Abused and Neglected Children. The most distinguished characteristics of child abuse in Korea is in its high incidence rates (75%), reflecting the fact that only the most severe cases are reported to the child protection centers. Korea's child protection policies have a large room for its development in resource mobilization as well as the expansion of the system. In particular, both the reporting system and investigation of child abuse cases should be improved. In other words, various methods should be sought for to early detect child abuse. At the same time, it is urgent to raise voluntary service use by the family of the victims. While many countries utilize confrontational strategies only dealing with occurring incidences of child abuse cases, Korea should move further than them, by not overlooking preventive measures, with which the vitimized families are provided with social services. As one way of raising the level of subjective well-being and satisfaction with lives and relationships, which are the lowest among OECD member countries, Korea should provide easy access to mental health services.
제1장 서론 제1절 연구 필요성과 목적 제2절 연구내용 및 방법
제2장 아동복지정책 유형화에 대한 이론적 고찰 제1절 복지국가 유형화 논쟁 제2절 에스핑-엔더슨의 복지국가 레짐 제3절 아동복지정책 영역과 연구분석틀
제3장 아동복지지출 유형과 효과성 국제비교 제1절 아동복지지출 유형과 아동복지지출 변화 경향 제2절 아동복지지출 수준 국제비교 제3절 주요국과 한국의 아동복지예산 비교 제4절 아동복지지출의 효과성 제5절 시사점
제4장 예방적 아동복지정책: 세제정책 유형과 효과성 국제비교 제1절 미국과 영국의 세제지원정책 제2절 프랑스의 세제지원정책(PPE:Prime pour l'Emploi) 제3절 스웨덴의 세제지원정책(EITC) 제4절 시사점